Classic WoW Wiki talk:Featured article/Articles
Current nominations Nominate below! 17:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT) Illidan Stormrage *'Oppose', for now. I've tried to work out some weird stuff but the article is not there yet. First off, this article isn't very well referenced; I see multiple instances of . Furthermore, I'd like to know who styled him "Lord Illidan". ' [[User:Apollozeus|''APΘLLΘ]](ZEUS)' 02:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT) *'Support', it's had a fair few changes since the above, and I've spent some time improving the article today. 14:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT) *'Support', This artile was the first to pop up in my mind even before i entered WW:FA 15:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT) *'Support', You are not prepared! <- Still gives me chills. Silly reason I know. I did read the article and it is interesting. 15:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT) Classes & Races I think we should have classes in there, just a a bit of help, and races for a bit of lore. I am not very good at making suggestions, but there is my idea. :I've looked at your suggestion and have viewed every class and race page separately. Here's my report: :The druid article is good :The hunter article is badly lined out :The mage article is short, and the section weren't done good enough :Paladin, I dislike that black table, and an article with a cleanup template can not become featured until its prose is reworked :Priest; this article has a redundant quest section, and it doesn't have external links :Rogue, also no no external links section, and the title isn't bold :Shaman, *gasp* no pictures of totems?, also, the section headers were poorly done :Warlock, the section 'Macros' needs to go, and an external links section needs to be created :Warrior, too short :Human, nice :Dwarf, rather short :Night elf, nice :Gnome, the big quote is unprofessional, and the section names aren't logical :Draenei, section "Controversy, confusion, and retcons" has gotta go :Orc, no WoW screenshots :Undead, "Opinion and analysis" should be removed :Tauren, nice :Troll, nice :Blood elf, get rid of "Dark Destiny" and "Controversy" :I hope that helps. ' ''APΘLLΘ''(ZEUS)' 04:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT) ::I'll look at those and try to make them good enough to feature Netherwing The article itself needs a bit of work, but I think it could be a good FA =) -- 22:22, 18 April 2007 (EDT) *'Oppose'. This article actually needs a lot of work. It doesn't have a bold title, it has capital letters where they shouldn't be, it doesn't have a picture but does cite one as a source (which by itself is already kinda weird) and lacks a lot of lore info. My three suggestions are: 1) wait until 2.1 comes out watch as more and more information on the Wing becomes available.. 2) improve the article and 3) please don't nominate articles for FA if they 'need a bit of work' (which is an understatement in this case). Featured articles should display WoWWiki's finest work, which this article really isn't (yet).' ''APΘLLΘ''(ZEUS)' 02:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT) Previous nominations Garona Halforcen *'Support'. I just edited the page to work out some minor style issues, and I personally think this article is really complete now. ' ''APΘLLΘ''(ZEUS)' 02:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 'This article has now been featured''' 14:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)